Graphs on Grants
21/11/10 17:43 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 17:43.
It is not surprising that grant renewal applications from experienced investigators that have previously been successfully funded will receive the highest ratings and continued funding from the recent NIGMS competition. What is surprising is that new grant applications from experienced investigators that have a track record of successful funding have about the same chance at getting funded as a new investigator with little experience and no track record as an independent scientist according to the data that has been released by Dr. Berg.
Apparently, the stated policy of the NAMGS Council Guidelines is as follows for new grant applications (Type 1s):
"The Council expects the Institute to support new projects in well-funded laboratories only if they are highly promising and distinct from other funded work in the laboratory. The Institute’s default position is not to pay such applications. However, under special circumstances and with strong justification, staff may recommend overriding the default position. In order for the application to be funded, the Council must concur with the recommendation."
If the intent here is to spread the money around, it seems like a rather "semi-socialist" approach to fund biomedical research. However, it could be that there is recognition, at least from the NAMGS Council, that better value may be realized from the distribution of limited funding over a larger number of scientists.
Link to the original blog post.
It is not surprising that grant renewal applications from experienced investigators that have previously been successfully funded will receive the highest ratings and continued funding from the recent NIGMS competition. What is surprising is that new grant applications from experienced investigators that have a track record of successful funding have about the same chance at getting funded as a new investigator with little experience and no track record as an independent scientist according to the data that has been released by Dr. Berg.
Apparently, the stated policy of the NAMGS Council Guidelines is as follows for new grant applications (Type 1s):
"The Council expects the Institute to support new projects in well-funded laboratories only if they are highly promising and distinct from other funded work in the laboratory. The Institute’s default position is not to pay such applications. However, under special circumstances and with strong justification, staff may recommend overriding the default position. In order for the application to be funded, the Council must concur with the recommendation."
If the intent here is to spread the money around, it seems like a rather "semi-socialist" approach to fund biomedical research. However, it could be that there is recognition, at least from the NAMGS Council, that better value may be realized from the distribution of limited funding over a larger number of scientists.
Link to the original blog post.